alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                  FORM 10-Q/A

               QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
                       THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934




For the quarterly period ended June 30, 1998

Commission file number 1-13293


                                 SunSource Inc.
             ------------------------------------------------------
             (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


           Delaware                                       23-2874736
-------------------------------                       ------------------- 
(State or other jurisdiction of                        (I.R.S. Employer
incorporation or organization)                        Identification No.)

       3000 One Logan Square
       Philadelphia, Pennsylvania                           19103
----------------------------------------                  ---------- 
(Address of principal executive offices)                  (Zip Code)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code:  (215) 282-1290
                                                     -------------- 


Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

    Title of Class                 Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered
-------------------------          ----------------------------------------- 
     Common Stock,                           New York Stock Exchange
par value $.01 per share


Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:  None


Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required
to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during
the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was
required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing
requirements for the past 90 days.

  YES  X       NO
      ---         ---     

On August 12, 1998 there were 7,215,667 Common Shares outstanding.










<PAGE>






                                   SIGNATURES




Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned thereunto duly authorized.



                                 SUNSOURCE INC.


















/s/ Joseph M. Corvino                                /s/ John J. Dabrowski
--------------------------                           ---------------------------
Joseph M. Corvino                                    John J. Dabrowski
Vice President - Finance                             Controller
(Chief Financial Officer)                            (Chief Accounting Officer)





DATE:  August 14, 1998
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.0
 
                            NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.
 
              COMPUTATION OF PRO FORMA NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
                                  (UNAUDITED)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 THREE MONTHS ENDED            NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                   SEPTEMBER 30,                 SEPTEMBER 30,
                                             --------------------------    --------------------------
                                                1996           1997           1996           1997
                                             -----------    -----------    -----------    -----------
<S>                                          <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
Net income (loss).........................   $  (293,000)   $ 1,232,000    $(1,751,000)   $ 2,488,000
                                             ===========    ===========    ===========    ===========
Weighted average shares of common stock
  outstanding.............................    12,500,000     12,500,000     12,500,000     12,500,000
Weighted average shares of common stock
  equivalents outstanding.................                      116,000                        34,000
Common stock equivalents issued within one
  year of initial filing..................       442,000                       442,000        294,000
Common stock equivalents needed to fund
  $10,000,000 dividend....................       545,000        545,000        545,000        545,000
                                             -----------    -----------    -----------    -----------
                                              13,487,000     13,161,000     13,487,000     13,373,000
                                             ===========    ===========    ===========    ===========
Pro forma net income (loss) per share.....   $     (0.02)   $      0.09    $     (0.13)   $      0.19
                                             ===========    ===========    ===========    ===========
</TABLE>
 
                                       17
# C_2019280EN.01001701.xml

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie (Poland) lodged on 8 March 2019 — BW Sp. z o.o., having its seat in B. v D.R.

(Case C-222/19)

(2019/C 280/23)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Opatowie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BW Sp. z o.o., having its seat in B.

Defendant: D.R.

Question referred

Must the provisions of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) in particular Article 3(1) of that directive, and the principles of EU law concerning consumer protection and the balance between contracting parties be interpreted as precluding the introduction into national law of the concept of ‘maximum non-interest credit costs’ and the mathematical formula for calculating those costs set out in Article 5(6a), in conjunction with Article 36a, of the Ustawa o kredycie konsumenckim (Law on Consumer Credit) of 12 May 2011 (consolidated text: Dziennik Ustaw of 2018, item 993), which allow the costs of the business activity of a seller or supplier to be included in the costs related to a credit agreement that are to be borne by the consumer (the total cost of the credit)?

---

(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                          2,187
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   10,471
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     11,946
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                27,129
<PP&E>                          14,297
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  41,426
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           27,474
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        13
<OTHER-SE>                      12,247
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    41,426
<SALES>                         47,093
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                47,093
<CGS>                           (36,142)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   (40,892)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                (1,381)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 4,820
<INCOME-TAX>                    (582)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             4,238
<DISCONTINUED>                  0    
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0    
<CHANGES>                       0    
<NET-INCOME>                    4,238
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   .33  
<EPS-DILUTED>                   .33  
                                


</TABLE>
Amendment to Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.8 
 AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This
Amendment (“Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement dated June 11, 2008 (“Agreement”) between Dr. Christopher Anzalone (“Executive”) and Arrowhead Research Corporation (“Company”), a Delaware
corporation located at 201 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 703, Pasadena, CA 91101, is made and entered into as May 12, 2009 (“Effective Date”). 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive seek to amend the Agreement; 
 NOW
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, such parties intending to be legally bound, agree as
follows: 
 Section 5(b) of the Agreement shall be discharged and rendered moot in its entirety; and replaced with the
following replacement Section 5(b): 
 (b) Termination of Employment. If the Employment Period is
terminated by the Company without Cause or by Executive with Good Reason, Executive shall be entitled to receive (i) a one-time lump sum payment of an amount equal to one month’s Base Salary payable as a special severance payment on the
date of termination; and (ii) a one time lump sum payment of an amount equal to the premiums for thirty (30) days’ of medical and dental benefits on the date of termination. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, no amounts
shall be payable pursuant to this Section 5(b) unless and until Executive has executed and delivered to the Company a general release in favor of the Company in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to the Board and only so long as
Executive has not breached the provisions of Sections 7, 8 and 9 hereof. Except as provided in this Section 5(b), Executive shall not be entitled to any other salary, compensation or benefits after termination of the Employment Period.

 IN WITNESSETH WHEREOF, each of the parties has duly executed the Amendment effective as of the Effective Date. 
  

					
	 Dated: May 12, 2009
	 		 	ARROWHEAD RESEARCH CORPORATION
			
		 		 	 /s/ Paul C. McDonnel

		 		 	Paul C. McDonnel
		 		 	Chief Financial Officer
			
	 Dated: May 12, 2009
	 		 	EXECUTIVE
			
		 		 	 /s/ Christopher Anzalone

		 		 	Dr. Christopher Anzalone
		 		 	Chief Executive Officer
# C_2019295EN.01006601.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/66

---

Action brought on 3 July 2019 — Costanzo v Parliament

(Case T-448/19)

(2019/C 295/86)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Roberto Costanzo (Benevento, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---
#### In the Matter of John M. Owens

Application granted and petitioner reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law. Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Green, JJ.
EXHIBIT 12.1**Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges**                       **Fiscal Year Ended**   **December 30, 2002**  **December 28, 2003**  **January 2, 2005**  **January 1, 2006**  **December 31, 2006**       *(In thousands, except ratios)*         Computation of earnings:                    Earnings before provision forincome taxes $39,979  $241,881  $423,200  $613,307  $430,708 Fixed charges excluding capitalizedinterest  8,492   8,565   9,725   1,263   11,934 Distributed earnings from50%-or-less-owned affiliate  (1,293)  (148)  (569)  2,764   5,782                 Adjusted earnings $47,178  $250,298  $432,356  $617,334  $448,424                                      Computation of fixed charges:                    Interest expense $7,580  $7,640  $8,526  $17  $9,506 Interest portion of operating leaseexpense  912   925   1,199   1,246   2,428                 Fixed charges $8,492  $8,565  $9,725  $1,263  $11,934                                      Ratio of earnings to fixed charges(1)  5.6x   29.2x   44.4x  488.8x   37.6x  (1) Computed by dividing (i) earnings before taxes adjusted for fixed charges by (ii) fixed chargeswhich include interest expense plus amortization of debt issuance costs, the portion of rentexpense under operating leases deemed to be representative of the interest factor and interestrelating to lease guarantees of 50%-or-less-owned affiliate.
1
**Exhibit      23.1**

**CONSENT      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

| Form                S-3 Nos. 333-102194, 333-102194-01 and 333-102194-02 | ITLA                Capital Corporation, ITLA Capital Trust VI and ITLA Capital Trust                VII                                                    |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Form                S-8 Nos. 333-28901 and 333-86040                     | ITLA                Capital Corporation 1995 Employee Stock Incentive Plan                                                                                  |
| Form                S-8 No. 333-129703                                   | ITLA                Capital Corporation 2005 Re-Designated, Amended and Restated Employee                Stock Incentive Plan                               |
| Form                S-8 No. 333-28931                                    | ITLA                Capital Corporation 1995 Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee                Directors                                                    |
| Form                S-8 No. 333-129702                                   | ITLA                Capital Corporation 2005 Re-Designated, Amended and Restated Stock                Option                Plan for Non-Employee Directors |
| Form                S-8 No. 333-28899                                    | ITLA                Capital Corporation Voluntary Retainer Stock and Deferred Compensation                Plan for Outside Directors                        |
| Form                S-8 No. 333-28905                                    | ITLA                Capital Corporation Recognition and Retention                Plan                                                                       |
# C_2020247EN.01001501.xml

| 27.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/15

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 15 April 2020 — Anglo Austrian AAB and Belegging-Maatschappij ‘Far-East’ v ECB

(Case T-797/19 R-II)

(Interim measures - Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Decision to withdraw authorisation as a credit institution - Further application - Article 160 of the Rules of Procedure)

(2020/C 247/22)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Anglo Austrian AAB AG, formerly Anglo Austrian AAB Bank AG (Vienna, Austria), Belegging-Maatschappij ‘Far-East’ BV (Velp, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Fischer, J. Willheim, M. Ketzer and O. H. Behrends, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: C. Hernández Saseta, E. Yoo and V. Hümpfner, agents)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of the implementation of the decision of 14 November 2019, ref: ECB-SSM-2019-AT-8, WHD-2019-0009, by which the European Central Bank withdrew the authorisation of Anglo Austrian AAB Bank AG as a credit institution from the date of notification of the decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application.

| 2. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Reserves the costs.

---
#### In re: Gary B. WILLIAMS, Petitioner.

No. 08-2217.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 13, 2009.

Decided: Jan. 15, 2009.

Gary B. Williams, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Gary B. Williams, a federal pretrial detainee, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with this court pursuant to 28 *819U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). In the petition, Williams alleges that he was illegally arrested and is being unlawfully detained, he is being denied access to the courts, and his right to a speedy trial has been violated. He seeks immediate release from custody and other relief. Upon review, we conclude that Williams is not entitled to the relief sought. Moreover, Williams may assert his claims in pretrial proceedings in his pending criminal case. *See United States v. Williams,*No. 4:08-cr-00087-RGD-FBS-l (E.D. Va.). Accordingly, we dismiss Williams’ petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
# C_2020433EN.01004801.xml

| 14.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 433/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 433/48

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2020 — X-cen-tek v EUIPO — Altenloh, Brinck & Co. (PAX)

(Case T-847/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark PAX - Earlier EU and international figurative marks SPAX - Relative ground for refusal - Dominant element - No counteraction - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Application of the law ratione temporis)

(2020/C 433/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: X-cen-tek GmbH & Co. KG (Wardenburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Hillers, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Altenloh, Brinck & Co. GmbH & Co. KG (Ennepetal, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 September 2019 (Case R 2324/2018-2) regarding opposition proceedings between Altenloh, Brinck & Co. and X-cen-tek.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders X-cen-tek GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders X-cen-tek GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

---
JUDGMENT

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-12-01167-CV

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE HOUSTON

FIRE FIGHTERS' RELIEF AND RETIREMENT FUND, Appellant

V.

THE CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 189th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 2012-28760).

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on December 

21, 2012. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly 

raised by the parties, the Court holds that there was reversible error in the trial court’s 

judgment granting summary judgment to Appellee and issuing a writ of mandamus. There 

also was reversible error in the trial court’s judgment denying summary judgment to the 

Appellant. Accordingly, the Court reverses the trial court’s judgment and renders 

judgment in favor of the Board of Trustees of the Houston Fire Fighters’ Relief and 

Retirement Fund.

The Court orders that the appellee, The City of Houston, Texas, pay all appellate 

costs.
The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered January 27, 2015.

Panel consists of Justices Jennings and Brown. Opinion delivered by Justice Brown.y
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion *

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-40992

Summary Calendar

ALEJANDRO MORALES

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

T C OUTLAW, Warden

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:06-CV-88

Before GARZA, PRADO, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alejandro Morales, federal prisoner # 14368-179, appeals the district

court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging a prison

disciplinary proceeding in which the disciplinary hearing officer (DHO)

determined that Morales had attempted a sexual assault of a prison counselor.

Morales lost 54 days of good conduct time, in addition to other penalties.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 29, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-40992

2

Morales contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the decision of

the DHO.

Morales has not shown that the district court erred by determining that

there was “some evidence” in the record to support the DHO’s disciplinary

decision where that decision was based on the counselor’s written report stating

that Morales blocked her exit from the office, exposed himself to her in a state

of arousal, and refused her orders to leave the office. See Hudson v. Johnson,

242 F.3d 534, 536-37 (5th Cir. 2001). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.